Anyone who's elected is going to see it through. No one believes we should depart. The question is, see it through how? For example, who is more likely to be able to repair alliances and get some contributions to the effort from our former allies, this administration or a new one?
Now write all you want about that, but what I want is a recognition of the mortifying implications of calling reading somebody else's words a president's "finest moments."
Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope as he rode on a train to the dedication of a cemetery for those killed in a battle. Bush has neither written anything nor gone to a military funeral.
the speech writer attempts to get into the person's mind and write what that person is thinking
If you truly think that Bush's speeches are written with the intent of 'getting into his mind' and revealing to the voters its meager contents, you should consider getting real.
How much 'changing' of the words put in his hands do you think a president is going to do who thinks the Caucasus area is the caucus area and doesn't read the newspapers and spends 40% of his presidency at his vacation retreat and is waiting to be told by a Mr. Brahimi to whom to turn over Iraqi sovereignty?
How much rewriting is a president doing who, when he isn't repeating over and over again like a parrot the talking points someone has drilled into him, is confused, rambling, incoherent and, in short, pitiful?
We have an empty suit at the helm and you admit it, when you call his reading aloud two speeches his "finest moments."
I don't believe a single citizen admires GWB. I think his haplessness arouses a certain sympathy, his simplicity gives heart to those who feel disadvantaged in life by their own similar limitations.
If the agenda of his puppeteers matches yours, you have a right to vote for him. But don't pretend he's not a puppet whose inadequacy is an international humiliation.
"Finest moments" indeed. |
